IPCA Finds Head and Face Strikes During Whangārei Arrest Were Unjustified

WHANGĀREI, 30 July 2026

The Independent Police Conduct Authority has found that a Police officer used unjustified force when striking a man in the face and on the head during an arrest in Whangārei.

The incident happened on 10 January 2023 after two men fled from Police, abandoned their vehicle and ran into a mangrove area.

A Police dog handler and two other officers tracked the pair through difficult terrain. One of the officers was carrying a 40mm sponge round launcher across the front of his body.

The Authority found that the use of the Police dog to apprehend the man was justified, but concluded that the assisting officer’s palm strike to the man’s face and a later strike to the top of his head with the launcher were not justified.

Arrest followed car fleeing from Police

The incident began at about 2.30pm when Police attempted to stop a vehicle after identifying the driver as a person wanted on suspicion of burglary.

The driver failed to stop, although Police did not begin a pursuit.

The two men later abandoned the car and entered a mangrove area.

Police officers, including a dog handler, followed them through mud, thick vegetation and deep water.

The dog handler located one of the men, referred to in the report as Mr Z, and recognised him as a person Police had been trying to return to prison under a parole recall warrant.

The officer said Mr Z stood up from a crouched position and began running toward a creek after being warned to stop.

The dog handler then released the Police dog, which bit Mr Z on the right forearm and brought him to the ground.

Police dog deployment found justified

The Authority accepted the dog handler’s account that Mr Z was attempting to escape.

It found that the officer had issued the required warning before releasing the dog and remained in control of the animal.

The report said the terrain made it difficult for officers to chase Mr Z on foot and there was a risk he could escape through the creek.

The Authority also considered Mr Z’s parole recall warrant, criminal history and the risk Police believed he posed to the community.

It concluded that the use of the Police dog was reasonable and justified in the circumstances.

The dog was removed once Mr Z had been secured in handcuffs.

Conflicting accounts of what happened during arrest

The main dispute concerned the actions of the officer carrying the sponge round launcher.

That officer said Mr Z was resisting and striking at the dog with his free hand.

He said he tried to grab Mr Z’s left arm but the man pulled away.

The officer said he then delivered a palm strike to Mr Z’s face as a distraction before wrestling with him and attempting to move his hands behind his back.

The officer denied deliberately striking Mr Z on the head with the launcher.

He suggested that the crescent-shaped injury on the top of Mr Z’s head may have been caused accidentally because the weapon was unsecured during the arrest.

Mr Z gave a different account.

He said an officer ran toward him, told him not to move and struck him on the head with what he believed was the butt of a gun.

A third officer at the scene supported the central parts of Mr Z’s account.

That officer said Mr Z was under control and not resisting when the officer carrying the launcher struck him in the face.

He also said the officer then brought the launcher down with both hands and struck Mr Z on the top of the head.

The dog handler said he saw the face strike but did not see the alleged strike with the launcher because he was focused on controlling the dog.

Injuries photographed and treated

Mr Z suffered three injuries during the arrest.

These included a cut above his right eye, a crescent-shaped wound on the top of his head and dog bite injuries to his right arm.

He was taken to Whangārei Hospital for treatment before being returned to custody.

The Authority found that Police provided appropriate medical care and photographed the injuries as part of the complaint process.

The report said Mr Z made an immediate complaint that an officer had struck him on the head with a gun-like object.

The third officer and a Police sergeant both supported the fact that this complaint was made soon after the arrest.

Palm strike found excessive

The Authority accepted that Mr Z may initially have appeared to be resisting while the dog was biting his arm.

However, it found that any resistance was not prolonged or particularly forceful.

The Authority concluded that the palm strike to the face was excessive and unnecessary.

It said the officer could have waited for the third officer to assist, secured the launcher properly and assessed whether Mr Z was armed.

The Police dog already had control of Mr Z, reducing the urgency of the situation.

The Authority also criticised the decision to target Mr Z’s face, particularly near the eye, when other areas of the body may have been available.

The strike caused a bleeding injury above the man’s eye.

The report found that the force was not justified as a means of overcoming resistance or defending the officers.

Authority rejects accidental injury explanation

The Authority also rejected the officer’s claim that the head injury may have been caused accidentally by the unsecured launcher.

It said the shape of the wound, the immediate complaint by Mr Z and the supporting account from the third officer made that explanation implausible.

On the balance of probabilities, the Authority concluded that the officer deliberately struck Mr Z on the head with the 40mm weapon.

It described the action as dangerous and unjustified.

The Authority said it agreed with the earlier Police decision to charge the officer with assault with a weapon.

Officer acquitted after second trial

Police investigated the incident and charged the officer with assault with a weapon.

The case went to trial before a judge and jury in August 2024, but the jury was unable to reach a verdict.

A second trial was held in August 2025, and the officer was acquitted.

The Authority delayed publishing its report until the criminal proceedings and a subsequent Police employment process had concluded.

The report stressed that the outcome of a criminal trial does not automatically determine the findings of an employment or oversight process.

A criminal jury applies the higher standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The Authority makes findings using the civil standard, known as the balance of probabilities.

Police accepted IPCA findings

According to the report, Police later conducted a disciplinary process.

Police concluded that the officer had used a palm strike but did not find that he had deliberately struck Mr Z with the launcher.

The IPCA reached a different conclusion after reviewing the evidence, including material from both criminal trials.

Police acknowledged and accepted the Authority’s findings during the formal consultation process.

The officer asked the Authority to review the notes of evidence from the two trials, which it did.

The Authority said its view remained unchanged.

Oversight body draws clear distinction between justified and unjustified force

The findings distinguish between two separate uses of force during the same arrest.

The Police dog deployment was found justified because Mr Z was believed to be fleeing, the terrain made a foot chase difficult, and the officer had issued a warning.

The later strikes were found unjustified because Mr Z was already on the ground, the dog had control of him and another officer was close enough to assist.

The report reinforces that Police officers may use reasonable force when making an arrest, preventing escape or defending themselves or others.

However, the force must remain necessary, proportionate and reasonable in the circumstances.

In this case, the Authority found that the threshold was not met when the officer struck Mr Z in the face and on the head.